Romo vs Staubach and Aikman

[mattjames2010]

Let's also take a look at Jim Kelly

Jim Kelly, when Bills were at their peak, he had a season where he threw over 30 TDs, averaged over 8 yards a pass, and nearly had himself a 4,000 yard passing season. He did this while this while having similar amount of passing attempts to Aikman.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Aikman was the Joe Flacco of the 90s. Not spectacular but his team was too dominant to lose.

"Joe Flacco of the 90's?"


Really?

 

[jnday]

Man, a lot of old timers with their nostalgia goggles on. I'm sure someone will have the nerve to come in saying Aikman was better than Favre and Steve Young.

We aren't talking about Aikman just being on a good team for a few years, he was on one of the most loaded teams in NFL history. Want to talk about why it's not comparable between he and Romo? That's why. I love the excuses, "Aikman didn't have a cast around him before 92!" - Yet, no excuses can be made for Romo or any other QB you put next to Aikman.

Face it: Aikman was trash for most of his career in Dallas or injured.

To be honest with you, Romo lost many games when he was under pressure. He was not a top QB without a great running game . Face it: Romo is not a HOF type player.

 

[mattjames2010]

To be honest with you, Romo lost many games when he was under pressure. He was not a top QB without a great running game . Face it: Romo is not a HOF type player.

Where did I say Romo is a HOF player? Though, with Namath being in there, I'd argue just about any average starting QB should be included.

 

[jnday]

There is some arrogant post by young fans that don't realize just how many great QBs that have played in Dallas. It would be hard to rank Romo ahead of Danny White if they was listed.

 

[jnday]

Where did I say Romo is a HOF player? Though, with Namath being in there, I'd argue just about any average starting QB should be included.

Namath changed the game as we know it. He deserves it.

 

[mattjames2010]

Namath changed the game as we know it. He deserves it.

Namath was a wannabe rockstar and played an average game for the AFL. You can give him that recognition without tossing him in the HOF. I'm not a fan of the HOF having someone included due to their image when nearly everyone else had to find their way in off of big play.

 

[jnday]

Namath was a wannabe rockstar and played an average game for the AFL. You can give him that recognition without tossing him in the HOF. I'm not a fan of the HOF having someone included due to their image when nearly everyone else had to find their way in off of big play.

Through whatever means, he gave what is now known as the AFC credibility. He was the real deal until injuries got him.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Is the off season over yet?

lol I know. These debates seem to happen every year. It's like a bad rerun.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Through whatever means, he gave what is now known as the AFC credibility. He was the real deal until injuries got him.

Some just have no respect for the games history.

 

[Miller]

Joe Montana with that "stacked" team had a season where he threw over 30 TDs, only had one season where he averaged below 7 yards a pass, ended his career with a 92.3 QB rating. Terry Bradshaw? Yeah, he was trash most of his career as well. Thank you for bringing him up. What next, Joe Namath?

....and you're missing the point. Troy Aikman played on one of the, if not the most loaded teams in NFL history and did NOTHING outstanding in career outside of having a good playoff rating in the 4 years we won the Super Bowl. I give him credit for that, but he ended his career with an 88 rating because he stunk it up in the playoffs after the team around him was no longer in their prime.

Tony never had a team like the 90s Cowboys, 80s 49ers, or 70s Steelers. He had a few good teams, 07, 09, 2014.

Next!

What is your argument? You are just a person who likes to hear himself talk and who argues without reading. You said Aikman wasn't good because he had a stacked team. I pointed out his historical significance and that almost every HOF QB had great teams around them with examples. You pick one, says it makes your point...???...and moves on. To me this means you have zero clue about the other 12 QBs and you really can't think beyond a 5 yr span. Your faulting QBs for being around greatness despite them being one of the main reasons the teams were great.

Romo sat for 3 yrs doing nothing while Aikman got his face beat in as a rookie, taking lumps. You can say it's because of being a FA but he didn't go through the beating. Romo has then been on very few teams that were like the late 80s/early 90s teams...just expansion like. He always had some talent and in a watered down, parity filled league hasn't taken care of his chances. Again, I'm a supporter but I don't support, rambling bs that can't put anything in historical perspective. You have no clue.....Next? I'm done with someone who has provided zero context and doesn't know history or the game

 

[mattjames2010]

What is your argument? You are just a person who likes to hear himself talk and who argues without reading. You said Aikman wasn't good because he had a stacked team. I pointed out his historical significance and that almost every HOF QB had great teams around them with examples. You pick one, says it makes your point...???...and moves on. To me this means you have zero clue about the other 12 QBs and you really can't think beyond a 5 yr span. Your faulting QBs for being around greatness despite them being one of the main reasons the teams were great.

Romo sat for 3 yrs doing nothing while Aikman got his face beat in as a rookie, taking lumps. You can say it's because of being a FA but he didn't go through the beating. Romo has then been on very few teams that were like the late 80s/early 90s teams. He always had some talent and in a watered down, parity filled league hasn't taken care of his chances. Again, I'm a supporter but I don't support, rambling bs that can't put anything in historical perspective. You have no clue.....Next?

And I'm pointing out to you, even when you attempted to compare the other QBs on stacked teams, Aikman looked average in comparison.

And Aikman was a top 5 pick, he was thrown to the wolves for good reason. He didn't stink it up in his first year, he stunk for 3 years. He also stunk it up after he supposed great development. But again, that was the team around him, right? Wasn't on him.

Romo was an undrafted FA, he wasn't ready to step on the field.

Keep going.

 

[Vinnie2u]

Staubach Aikman White > Romo

 

[Miller]

And I'm pointing out to you, even when you attempted to compare the other QBs on stacked teams, Aikman looked average in comparison.

Keep going.

Considering you don't even know most of those teams and who was on them, AND the fact that Aikman is 8th in history in playoff accuracy and one of the tops in winning percentage shows you how dense you are. You're playing pretend. You are literally arguing in circles without knowing it. You acted like the 94 49ers were trash and I even had to show you who was on them. You are making it up as you go without knowing a thing. Again, bye. Cant debate someone who doesn't know the game or eras and ignores decades of logic. You know nothing of 90% of the people I mentioned without google and it's easy to see

 

[mattjames2010]

Considering you don't even know most of those teams and who was on them, AND the fact that Aikman is 8th in history in playoff accuracy and one of the tops in winning percentage shows you how dense you are. You're playing pretend. You are literally arguing in circles without knowing it. You acted like the 94 49ers were trash and I even had to show you who was on them. You are making it up as you go without knowing a thing. Again, bye. Cant debate someone who doesn't know the game or eras and ignores decades of logic. You know nothing of 90% of the people I mentioned without google and it's easy to see

Haha, playoff accuracy! Watch out! Though I've already acknowledged that Troy played tremendously in the 4 post-seasons. Too bad he was trash in the others.

Aikman, the dominant playoff QB

1991 - 63.0
1996 - 51.0
1998 - 37.0
1999 - 70.7

Outside of two of the playoff games in those post seasons, he had accuracy below 60.

 

[joseephuss]

Aikman was the Joe Flacco of the 90s. Not spectacular but his team was too dominant to lose.

Let's give Romo the #1 defense for his almost his whole career and see what happens

I think that is one of the dumbest comparisons I have ever seen.

 

[Jstopper]

To be honest with you, Romo lost many games when he was under pressure. He was not a top QB without a great running game . Face it: Romo is not a HOF type player.

What kind of crap are you spewing? Romo has been a top qb every year since he became a starter. You're going to sit here and try to say he wasn't great without a great running game but what qb is? Aikman didn't do anything without a top rb. The lengths that some of you old heads go through to defend your boys is astounding.

 

[mattjames2010]

I'm actually starting to dislike Aikman more as a player reminding myself how bad he was outside of those 4 seasons. Holy crap was he awful.

 

[Jstopper]

Considering you don't even know most of those teams and who was on them, AND the fact that Aikman is 8th in history in playoff accuracy and one of the tops in winning percentage shows you how dense you are. You're playing pretend. You are literally arguing in circles without knowing it. You acted like the 94 49ers were trash and I even had to show you who was on them. You are making it up as you go without knowing a thing. Again, bye. Cant debate someone who doesn't know the game or eras and ignores decades of logic. You know nothing of 90% of the people I mentioned without google and it's easy to see

The fact that these other HOF qbs that played at the same time as Aikman all had better numbers than him speaks volumes. Did his team win lots of playoff games in that 4 year span? Yes. Did He do anything outside of that 4 year span? No. Once his team wasn't filled with overflowing talent Aikman was a garbage. Which other HOF qbs from that era only were good for 4 years?

 

[WillieBeamen]

The ignorance in this thread